Man I'm so torn on this issue. I totally respect private institutions' right to discriminate on whatever basis they want. The thing with the boy scouts is that you have to start so young and put so much work into it. There's way more to scouting than sexual identity. Such a bummer to let kids work towards an eagle for so long only to go through puberty, come of age, discover they are gay and find themselves excluded.

It's BSA's call for sure. I'm just not sure I understand how having more eagle scouts is a bad thing.

Given the LDS church's huge stake in scouting (the Church OWNS scouting in Utah and Idaho), the recent political backlash to the church especially as a result of participation in Prop 8 in CA, and their recent "kinder gentler" take on same sex attraction (http://www.mormonsandgays.org/), I'm really curious to see how this shakes out. It seems like the Mormons might support a hybrid approach where gay boys who are not sexually active are allowed to participate but gay troop leaders aren't?

"Members of the Church who have same-sex attractions, but don’t act on them, can continue to enjoy full fellowship in the church, which includes holding the priesthood, carrying out callings, and attending the temple. Unlike in times past, the Church does not necessarily advise those with same-sex attraction to marry those of the opposite sex. Same-sex attraction itself is not a sin, but yielding to it is. However, through repentance Jesus Christ will offer forgiveness."

I was in the military when gays were "banned". There were lots of gays, everybody knew about it and nobody cared. Now at least they can't get busted out for being gay and doing their job. It's the same with the boy scouts. I was in scouts as a kid - didn't really like it - thought it was hokey, but I'm sure there were gays there when I was there - so what? People need to get over themselves.

All gays aren't pedophiles - that's a myth made up by idiot homophobes.

Just because I'm a straight male doesn't mean I'm trolling my daughter's friends at a sleepover, and just because a man is gay doesn't mean he is cruising the scout troop.

The gay and lesbian agenda has been carried out so methodically and carefully over the past 40 years that just by reading the above posts I have to almost applaud them for what they have accomplished. They have literally without any scientific evidence to back it up have convinced a whole generation that they are born that way are and have no choice in the matter. So here we are in 2013 treating homosexuals on the same playing field as African americans etc... to me it's appalling. There have been many debates on these types of issues so my opinion shouldn't surprise anyone. The Oath that the Boy scouts take is simply the following from what I understand

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Look, this is America and in this great country you have the freedom to do and be whatever and whoever you want. If the Boy scouts want to teach young boys about God and country, survival skills and good morals and community service that is awesome. The question is, does someone who leads a homosexual lifestyle have the right to be a leader within this group? I say absolutely not.. First it's not about rights, it;s about what the group wants and believes in. The same way an atheist group isn't going to let a born again Christian conduct one of their meetings. It's ludacris to even think that this would be up for debate. Forget about the person being a homosexual, what if the person was an atheist and wanted to be a scout leader? It goes against everything the scouts believe and teach. There was a time in this country where the word freedom and sovereignty actually meant something. When you water down gasoline and stick it in your tank your vehicle will run very poorly if at all., when you water down the truth and common sense the same thing happens but has far more serious consequences. This is just another step forward in pushing a sinister agenda masquerading as political correctness.

^^^^^^ it is astonishing to me that this kind of thinking is prevalent in our world. I honestly can not believe that anyone could think like this. I respect everyones right to their own opinion but to read that Oath and think it is ok to sexually discriminate against another person is ignorant.

The gay and lesbian agenda has been carried out so methodically and carefully over the past 40 years that just by reading the above posts I have to almost applaud them for what they have accomplished. They have literally without any scientific evidence to back it up have convinced a whole generation that they are born that way are and have no choice in the matter. So here we are in 2013 treating homosexuals on the same playing field as African americans etc... to me it's appalling. There have been many debates on these types of issues so my opinion shouldn't surprise anyone. The Oath that the Boy scouts take is simply the following from what I understand

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Look, this is America and in this great country you have the freedom to do and be whatever and whoever you want. If the Boy scouts want to teach young boys about God and country, survival skills and good morals and community service that is awesome. The question is, does someone who leads a homosexual lifestyle have the right to be a leader within this group? I say absolutely not.. First it's not about rights, it;s about what the group wants and believes in. The same way an atheist group isn't going to let a born again Christian conduct one of their meetings. It's ludacris to even think that this would be up for debate. Forget about the person being a homosexual, what if the person was an atheist and wanted to be a scout leader? It goes against everything the scouts believe and teach. There was a time in this country where the word freedom and sovereignty actually meant something. When you water down gasoline and stick it in your tank your vehicle will run very poorly if at all., when you water down the truth and common sense the same thing happens but has far more serious consequences. This is just another step forward in pushing a sinister agenda masquerading as political correctness.

Is discriminating against someone because of their sexuality "helping people at all times". I don't see any sort of caveat that says help other people, provided they are straight. So Flight is it okay to take to heart certain parts of the oath, but take other parts more loosely?

Being an Eagle Scout and part of The Order of the Arrow I can say in the 20 years I spent in scouting , I know of at least three people who were gay. Did it effect the troop or hinder anyone including themselves from learning the life lessons we all did , NO !!!!!
Gays have been and will be a part of the BSA even if they governor inn group wants to admit it or not !!
I use everyday the things the Boy Scouts taught me
Itch

The gay and lesbian agenda has been carried out so methodically and carefully over the past 40 years that just by reading the above posts I have to almost applaud them for what they have accomplished. They have literally without any scientific evidence to back it up have convinced a whole generation that they are born that way are and have no choice in the matter. So here we are in 2013 treating homosexuals on the same playing field as African americans etc... to me it's appalling. There have been many debates on these types of issues so my opinion shouldn't surprise anyone. The Oath that the Boy scouts take is simply the following from what I understand

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Look, this is America and in this great country you have the freedom to do and be whatever and whoever you want. If the Boy scouts want to teach young boys about God and country, survival skills and good morals and community service that is awesome. The question is, does someone who leads a homosexual lifestyle have the right to be a leader within this group? I say absolutely not.. First it's not about rights, it;s about what the group wants and believes in. The same way an atheist group isn't going to let a born again Christian conduct one of their meetings. It's ludacris to even think that this would be up for debate. Forget about the person being a homosexual, what if the person was an atheist and wanted to be a scout leader? It goes against everything the scouts believe and teach. There was a time in this country where the word freedom and sovereignty actually meant something. When you water down gasoline and stick it in your tank your vehicle will run very poorly if at all., when you water down the truth and common sense the same thing happens but has far more serious consequences. This is just another step forward in pushing a sinister agenda masquerading as political correctness.

I keep re-reading this in hopes that I misread something. There is so much hate and ignorance in this short statement it make me sick to my stomach.

.....They have literally without any scientific evidence to back it up have convinced a whole generation that they are born that way are and have no choice in the matter.....

IMO if you think you can just choose to find a man attractive then you are a homo. Being a straight man myself i know that is something you can't choose. Let yourself out of the closet, you will be happier.

For the record, there is scientific evidence regarding homosexuality. Scientifically, the brains of gay males are very similar to straight females, and vice versa for lesbians. It has to do with an influx of the wrong hormones at the wrong time in the womb, and it results in screwed up brain chemistry.

This is exactly why the John/Joan experiment failed miserably. A little boy lost his penis in a botched circumcision, so the doctor told his parents that he could just turn the boy into a girl, they feed him hormones and voila, little girl. But it didn't work that way. Mentally speaking, he was a male, who played like a boy and liked girls, he was just hormonally (and physically) screwed up. He was raised as a girl, wearing dresses and being forced to be girly until he was 14, when he finally confronted his parents about it. They told him the truth and he went back to living as a male (as best as he could).

He married a woman and adopted a child. And then when he was 37, he went to a grocery store parking lot and shot himself in the chin with a shotgun. He had battled depression his entire life after the whole fiasco and finally gave up. That's a whole different topic entirely though, so I'm not getting into that.

This all being said, while I don't necessarily agree with some of the stuff that the BSA does (I am an Eagle Scout) I think that as private organization, it is their right to deem someone unfit for Scouts based on whatever their ideals are. I mean it is a private institution and you can either shut up and hide your beliefs from them to get that Eagle Scout rank for the purposes of job applications, or you don't join the scouts and refuse to support them.

As for the gay males being troop leaders, well there are plenty of women acting as troop leaders these days as well. Like someone else said, there is a difference between a gay man and a pedophile. Pedophiles are not all gay, and not all gay men are pedophiles. Trying to bring that argument into the equation is asshattery. So I believe that the same goes for the leadership as well. You can either just keep your private life and beliefs quiet while involved with Scouting, or you just don't support it.

There are plenty of ways to learn the same skills taught in Boy Scouts without having to support them in the least. All of which are free these days thanks to the internet.

As usual my post has been taken out of context and I am attacked for being a homophobe. I'd like to ask anyone where in my post do you say hate or bigotry? I stated that if there were an atheist group and they wanted to exclude Christians from their group they have that right, this is America, you can't force your way of thinking on people and that is exactly what you are doing. This is just another example of simple minded sheeple believing the crap thats been pushed down your throats since you were in diapers. You have seen the proverbial gay couple in the movies, on tv in every show for years now, and it has become so common that nobody even blinks an eye. Now anyone who voices any kind of opposition to your point of view is deemed a bigot, a homophob, caveman etc...

I have a couple friends who are full on gay, they only feel they are attracted to men. I have another friend who is attracted to both sexes. What about the pedophiles? Were they born that way to? How about serial killers? Were they born that way? I guess nobody can take responsibility for any of their actions because we can all just blame it on the way we were born. As far as their being real documented peer reviewed factual scientific evidence there actually isn't any.

Clearly, the controversy over this issue is huge in our culture. While pro-gay activists and their allies want us to believe people are "born gay" and that sexual orientation is an unchangeable characteristic like race or eye color, a closer examination of the scientific evidence reveals that the "nature vs. nurture" debate over homosexuality is far from settled.

At best, the evidence for a genetic and/or biological basis to homosexual orientation is inconclusive. In fact, since the early 1990s, numerous studies attempting to establish a genetic cause for homosexuality have not proven to be valid or repeatable – two important requirements for study results to become accepted as fact in the scientific community.

Because of this, the current thinking in the scientific community is that homosexuality is likely caused by a complex interaction of psychosocial, environmental and possible biological factors. And the two leading national psychiatric and psychological professional groups agree that, so far, there are no conclusive studies supporting any specific biological or genetic cause for homosexuality.1

In sum, there is no scientific or DNA test to tell us if a person is homosexual, bisexual or even heterosexual for that matter. And since nobody is "born gay," it's clear that sexual orientation is, at its core, a matter of how one defines oneself – not a matter of biology or genes.

But what about the studies I've heard about in the media that say people are born gay?

While the media's headlines and reporting of these studies have given the impression that science is closing in on a "gay gene," it's important to note that each study suffers from significant problems and limitations. And what the researchers themselves have said about their own work is important. Specifically, you should know that their comments have never been fully reported in the press.

Some examples:

From the 1991 Hypothalamus (Brain) Study, Simon LeVay, who self-identifies as gay, said: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."2

And from the 1991 Twins Study, Richard Pillard – also a gay man – admits: "Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins." 3

And from the 1993 X Chromosome Study, Dean Hamer – also a gay man – said: "…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."4

And from the 2005 Fruit Fly Study, Barry Dickson, the lead researcher, admitted that the understanding of how innate behaviors are genetically determined is "rudimentary at best." He also admitted that the male-male courtship behaviors they observed probably involved "environmental and social stimuli" and that the female-female courtship behavior was abnormal – missing some key steps.5

And what about the 2005 male and 2006 female pheromone studies from Sweden that gay activists claimed were more evidence of a biological basis to homosexuality? (Pheromones are chemicals that can be smelled and are known to influence animal behavior. However, their role in humans is unknown.) Here, it is significant that Ivanka Savic, the lead researcher, said that the 2005 study had nothing to do with proving homosexuality to be biological. And regarding the 2006 study, she said "it is very important to make clear that the study has no implications for possible dynamics in sexual orientation."6

More recently, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, summed up the research on homosexuality saying that "sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations" (italics added).7

As a comparison, Collins indicates that the potential genetic component for homosexuality is much less than the genetic contribution that has been found for common personality traits such as general cognitive ability, extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, aggression and traditionalism.8

Clearly, the case for a "gay gene" has not been made.

So, do all gay people believe that sexual orientation is "fixed" and unchangeable?

Not by a long shot. While it's true that many homosexuals and their allies believe that people are "born gay" and cannot change, there exists a surprising – and not insignificant – minority of gays and lesbians who recognize that sexual orientation is, in fact, flexible. For example, Kate Kendell, director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, argued in the gay magazine Frontiers that sexual orientation is not fixed. And lesbian columnist and psychotherapist Jackie Black has said that sexuality is not static. Further, lesbian author Camille Paglia argues that homosexuality is not normal and that it is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.

Most recently, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force spokesperson Roberta Sklar admitted in an ABC news story that today's young lesbians and bisexuals have a "more flexible view" about sexuality and see it as "a fluid thing."9

Thus, while no one knows for sure what causes a homosexual identity to develop, recent research confirms that permanent change is, indeed, possible. Pro-gay ally Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University is now convinced that many homosexuals have successfully changed their sexual orientation. In 2001, he published results from a study of 200 gay men and lesbians who had sought "re-orientation" therapy. Spitzer found that most have been able to achieve fulfilling heterosexual relationships. While his research shows that such change often involves a long and difficult journey, it is nevertheless possible for highly motivated individuals.10

Even more recently in 2007, a landmark study was published by Drs. Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse which concluded that it is possible for homosexuals to change their physical attractions and that such efforts to bring about change do not appear to be psychologically harmful. Entitled Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, this groundbreaking research has been hailed by experts from both sides of the debate as being the most methodologically rigorous to date.11

And as more evidence of the fact that people can and do change their sexual orientation, Exodus International, a group of more than 150 Protestant Christian ministries in the United States and around the world, represents literally tens of thousands of people who have made the choice to walk out of their homosexual and bisexual identities. Similar organizations exist for Roman Catholics (Courage), Mormons (Evergreen), Jews (JONAH) and Muslims (StraightWay).

Even in the secular cultural arena we see evidence of well-known people who have clearly changed their sexual orientation. Examples of formerly gay-identified celebrities who reportedly have become involved in relationships with people of the opposite gender include actors Anne Heche and Julie Cypher. Apparently, the reality that people can change their sexual identity isn't just a right-wing Christian thing.

Clearly, pro-homosexual advocates and their allies aren't dealing with all the evidence in their insistence that people are "born gay" and cannot change.

We can go on and on about this and other social issues but here is the truth plain and simple. While it seems i can agree to disagree on subjects like this, the opposition touts tolerance only when i agree with their way of thinking. As soon as I have my own valid opinion, all bets seem to be off the table. If you want to look hypocrisy in the face, just read through this thread . BTW Nick I totally appreciated your post.

So it's been a long time since I've been a scout. What are the specific merit badges and activities where sexual orientation is meaningful? In a don't ask don't tell context when does sexuality come up?

All you need to do is talk to or read about some homosexuals and you will know that it's a FACT people don't generally choose to be gay. It's just the way they are. Unfortunately, since the bible speaks against homosexuality, some people do whatever they can to cover up or ignore that fact.

A) I'm glad you read all of my post and understood it, something many people on these forums seem not to do before diving into an attack.

B) I never stated that there was a "gay" gene. It has nothing to do with genes and everything to do with hormonal development of the brain in the womb. It's not gay, it's not genetic, it's a hormone that causes a human body to develop along the lines of the opposite sex. Gay men are attuned to the pheromones of other men and not women. Sure they can pretend that they aren't gay, but in reality, many of these people actually wind up repressing that side to fit in with societal norms.

C) There are events in the age of growing up that can likely effect a person's sexuality, but that again is about brain chemistry. Were they abused sexually, were they taught that stuff like that is normal by an abusive adult? The mental trauma from sexual abuse at a young age frequently runs far deeper than we even realize, and I've seen first hand what sexual abuse to a young girl can and will eventually do to her as she matures. It's not good and it results in a cluster**** of a relationship. Everything becomes out of wack for these people and you honestly can't predict how it might affect someone. One person might turn out unable to function in a relationship (the majority of my experience) or they wind up being homosexual or a pedophile or something.

I have known plenty of gay people who maintained a long relationship with a straight person, had sex with the opposite sex and then finally said no more, they wanted to be who they were. They behaved as though they were heterosexual for the singular purpose of acceptance in society. In reponse to your reference to the study "Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation," this was written.

I think what we all need to understand is that nature frequently does win over the nurture argument, whether you want to believe it or not. The idea that nurture wins was something that was created by the batisht feminist movement and spearheaded by Gloria Allred. The reality is that nature wins over nurture.

This all means one thing, you are almost always naturally meant to be a certain way. The chemical processes in your body can and will dictate much of your behavior. However, strong willed people are capable of countering the biological aspects of behavior and can change themselves. But it takes a whole lot more than most people can do.

I just think about it like this. Did I have to make myself become attracted to women? When a hot girl walks by, it is just instinct to check her out or do a double take. I mean I didn't have to "choose" to be attracted to my wife. It was just natural.

Or the Boy Scouts can enlist Bachmann's husband to convert any gay scouts before they are allowed to join.

Darren said, "IMO if you think you can just choose to find a man attractive then you are a homo. Being a straight man myself i know that is something you can't choose. Let yourself out of the closet, you will be happier."
No, no, no, it doesn't work that way it is only the homosexuals that can choose there sexual orientation, straight people cannot choose, that would be silly, we are so different from "those" type of people! Maybe flight can straighten you out and get you thinking like a good christian straight heterosexual!

Flight said, "This is just another example of simple minded sheeple believing the crap thats been pushed down your throats since you were in diapers."

How ironic, This is exactly what the churches have done to turn people against homosexuals! If preachers wouldn't stand at the pulpit preaching Damnation against homosexuals, this wouldn't even be an issue. Nobody naturally wakes up in the morning and says" To Hell with the Gays"
and as far as degree of sin (if it is a sin) shouldn't homosexuality fall under coveting thy neighbors wife or his donkey? Which is the dead last commandment, #10? Actually the ten commandments which is the bases of the Christian Faith doesn't even say anything about or against homosexuality.

For the religious folks, I have a question. In looking at the bible verses about homosexuality, I see examples like this:
Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

So my question is, is it okay for women to have sex which each other? Because, I mean we all know how cool that is, and it'd be a shame for it to be a sin.

Brett You want to know something funny? I don't pretend to be a perfect person, far from it. In times past I have had my share of crazy experiences and yes participating with 2 women and also thinking it was the greatest thing since peanut butter. I'm not stupid, i understand where you are coming from. That being said the life I lead now is far from the one I lived in the past. I am nothing more then a sinner saved by grace. I think the problem with forums like this is that the tone becomes one in which Christians are made out to be these pompous sounding people who want to push their views on everyone else. I'm sorry if I come across that way, sometimes in the heat of the moment we say things that later on we wish we wouldn't have. I don't view homosexuality as any different then lying, stealing, cheating etc...which I have done all of them and so has everyone else on this thread, I think we can all attest to that if we are honest.. I also don't think anyone on this thread would object to calling lying, stealing or cheating wrong. We all have this built in mechanism that generally lets us know that certain thing are just wrong. That being said I believe God loves everyone regardless of what they have done. The thief on the cross is in paradise today because he believed in the saving grace of Jesus Christ. The thief on the other side didn't see Jesus for who he was, Why am I saying this? It's because we truly are in a spiritual battle. The Bible says that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places. People may laugh about the things that i type on threads like this, I get called names whenever I participate in these types of discussions. Sure it bothers me sometimes, but it doesn't bother me as much as knowing that people who die without Christ are going to live in eternity separated from God. I believe in the authoritative word of God with everything within me. If I believe this book to be true, then why wouldn't I tell everyone I know about it? Thats why it's called the good news, guess what? your sins are forgiven, everyone that you and I have ever done. I don't know about you but that makes me feel amazing because believe me I have sinned more then anyone, at least I know I couldn't run for congress because of fear of all the skeletons falling out. But thank God for his death and resurrection on the cross because without it i know that i would be lost. Ok enough of the sermon, I just want people to understand where my heart is and where I am coming from. I'm not here to push my views. I am simply here to say the God who I believe created you and I, who came down to die for all of us, that we could avoid that place called hell, Gods word says that it is not natural for a man to lay with a man. If God said it then for me that is the end of the story. I guess all i can really do is let people know about the love of Christ, it's up to them what they do with it. The world is in pretty bad shape wherever we look, I believe the answer is in the pages of the written word. I guess in the end people can do or think whatever they want, it's their God given right. However, there are always consequences to the choices we make. When it comes to the Bible, ultimately it will be the most important choice you or I will ever make. Choose wisely.

I read it. Without butchering the context there is no case for Paul being gay.

Example: The 'Bishop' states that Paul himself suggest in 1Cor that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Paul was quoting and addressing the previous writing of the Church of Corinth- Those were not Paul's words.
The Bishop's entire 'theory' presupposes that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was sexual in nature, when in fact there is no evidence for that at all. Paul speak against drunkenness, idolatry, lying and a host of other sins against God as much as he addresses sexual sin.

Assuming all that's true, why pass up the chance to proselytize to adolescent boys and talk them out of being gay? Love the sinner hate the sin and all that? Help them with the "who to love and how to do it" merit badge?

Seems like this policy of exclusion cuts out a huge population that could potentially be saved...

"trains them in the responsibilities of participating citizenship" taken from the website " that helping youth is a key to building a more conscientious, responsible, and productive society."

Why train them that in a manner unlike the world around them?

It does not matter if you agree with it, what you think of it, or what you say about it, homosexuals exist, as do people of other religions, as do people of different race, as do people that are taller than you, and shorter than you. Whether you agree with how those people live their lives, they still get to live their lives, how about we show our children that when they grow up they have to live with other people and around other people that have different viewpoints than theirs, and act differently than you do. Can we just accept it and learn to live with them? Gay people dont want you to be gay, just get over the fact that they are, it does not effect you.

I suggested it because it is fascinating to see the response that the possibility evokes - but what I meant was why does it matter either way wrt the validity of his message?

I guess I don't understand your "president' reference.

Suggesting Paul was gay doesn't change the validity of his message. What it does is cast a gloomy shadow on Paul's credibility by painting him as a hypocrite.
It is a subtle, yet pernicious lie veiled as a position to be considered.

As always, you completely missed the point. If its all going to be about equal rights, then me being a staight person would have joined the girl scouts. You see I would rather go camping with a bunch of girls than boys.

Homosexuality is a sin. It is a sin against nature. Genetics specifically.

Almost all religions condemn or at least shy away from homosexuality because it was bad for the group. Consider early tribal man. There were only a few hundred people for thousands of square miles. Losing two people from the breeding pool could create a big problem. Later, what about wealth, political and business alliances? Early society was built on swapping genetics and homosexuality hinders/opposes that.

I don't know of anywhere consenting adult brothers and sisters can marry (I know there are places where weird arrangements are made, but they do not consummate the marriage). This is for the same reason. It is a sin against genetics. You could use the same, "It doesn't hurt anybody" argument for this type of incest. As a society, today we still have laws that make certain sexual relationships taboo.

We do not suffer from they same social issues that early man did, but that is when many of the religious rules were written--Back when it was a BIG deal. Almost all religions are softening their position on homosexuality. These rules have been established over hundreds or thousands of years. It will take time. Nobody likes to be pushed even if they know something is right (or doesn't really matter).

The ideas above are not entirely mine. It is taken from a classroom discussion in a graduate level Behavioral Ecology course I took in college. The professor was a world-class evolutionary anthropologist. He said that homosexuality was a sin and a riot broke out. I don't want to cite him since I may not have gotten everything perfect and he may have even changed his stance. I thought it was interesting that a famous vocal agnostic would call anything a sin.

So since its a sin against nature, and genetics, how do to gay people hurt someone elses genetics? They cant. They can not have a biological child, therefore your incest argument is pointless.

We create animals that are genetically modified until they can not even breed. WE CREATE. If you want to talk about how we should outlaw "sins against nature", you better stop going to the grocery market.

Joel, It is just a non-theological argument against homosexuality. I don't think it hurts anyone else's genetics, but there are other types of sexuality that don't hurt anyone, but we still don't allow.

Genetic modification of food products is hardly a sin, if anything it is the salvation of mankind. Without round-up ready cotton and "dry" rice how can the world feed and clothe a population of 10 billion? We're on our way there. Either way, it has nothing to do with this discussion.

Seriously? I'm not usually the grammar/spelling freak, but it's gonna be tough for me to take any argument seriously from a poster who doesn't understand the difference between ludacris & ludicrous.
Jus' sayin.

As always, you completely missed the point. If its all going to be about equal rights, then me being a staight person would have joined the girl scouts. You see I would rather go camping with a bunch of girls than boys.

When you were like 9 or 10? You would have been okay with dressing up in the GS uniform?

Homosexuality is a sin. It is a sin against nature. Genetics specifically.

Almost all religions condemn or at least shy away from homosexuality because it was bad for the group. Consider early tribal man. There were only a few hundred people for thousands of square miles. Losing two people from the breeding pool could create a big problem. Later, what about wealth, political and business alliances? Early society was built on swapping genetics and homosexuality hinders/opposes that.

I don't know of anywhere consenting adult brothers and sisters can marry (I know there are places where weird arrangements are made, but they do not consummate the marriage). This is for the same reason. It is a sin against genetics. You could use the same, "It doesn't hurt anybody" argument for this type of incest. As a society, today we still have laws that make certain sexual relationships taboo.

We do not suffer from they same social issues that early man did, but that is when many of the religious rules were written--Back when it was a BIG deal. Almost all religions are softening their position on homosexuality. These rules have been established over hundreds or thousands of years. It will take time. Nobody likes to be pushed even if they know something is right (or doesn't really matter).

The ideas above are not entirely mine. It is taken from a classroom discussion in a graduate level Behavioral Ecology course I took in college. The professor was a world-class evolutionary anthropologist. He said that homosexuality was a sin and a riot broke out. I don't want to cite him since I may not have gotten everything perfect and he may have even changed his stance. I thought it was interesting that a famous vocal agnostic would call anything a sin.

So what about when a heterosexual man or woman is born without the ability to have/make children? Is that also considered a "sin against nature or genetics"?

No, Jeremy. That is just a bummer. I would say that a sin would have to be an action, describe an action or be used in the place of an action. I have impulses that are not always right, but that doesn't mean I am a "non-practicing" bank robber.

Based on my personal experiences and beliefs I don't see any reason why a homosexual can't be a troop leader or a scout, but I am no expert on the BSA's code or beliefs. Were I a homosexual I wouldn't want to be part of a group that openly opposes my participation. I would take my skills and enthusiasm elsewhere.

Um, its a private club that someone just started one day. If you dont like the policies, start another one just like it that alligns with your beliefs. If you are right, then the old one will fade into obscurity and your new one will blossom. Who cares what some private club thinks? They dont have the market cornered on camping and marksmanship. Whats the point in wanting someone else to change their club?

This thread really took some amazing detours....but it made me want to pose a serious question.
Disclaimer: I've got no dog in the fight....wasn't a Scout, no major religion plays a major role on my life, and I'm politically a mutt that picks and chooses by subject, not Party. So:

Generally speaking, can it be agreed that we as a Country have been told that we must make accommodation and concession for groups that go "against" the country's traditionally held opinions.... For example allowing the building of Mosques for those of the Muslim faith to openly practice their chosen religion. Now it is pretty widely held that traditional Muslim teachings are pretty severe in their views concerning a lot of hot button agenda items; like homosexuality, adultery, pedophilia, etc. Not a real tolerant bunch of folks. So why is it that the same bunch of folks who bang the drum for that type of tolerance seem to lead the charge to force groups that hold more conservative, or "traditional" viewpoints, be forced to change their policy?

^Probably because trying to outlaw the participation of a particular religion by singling them out and denying them legal rights is considered anti-American. I don't recall that this is an issue of outlawing the scouts if they don't admit gays. It's a war of public opinion, which has consequences on monetary support and participation.

If it is that big of a deal (not allowing gays) to the BSA, then they should stand their ground....however, if you look at all of the donors (corporate specifically) that have ceased their monetary contributions to protest the BSA view, I suspect they will change their policy.

There is some very entertaining posts here. I really do not understand what is wrong with not having gays in the scouts. How many times do we hear about older boy preditors or men abusing boys! I believe there are other groups out there or start your own that encourage such behavior. If you want to be a scout keep sex out of it.. I don't need to be labeled I can do it myself....Teapartier I believe in low taxes and self reliance.

How many times do we hear about older boy preditors or men abusing boys!

Of course pedophiles should not be allowed to lead the Boy Scouts...but the discussion is GAYS in the scouts. The inability to distinguish between the two is a sad state of peoples ignorance. That is the equivalent to saying that no straight male should ever lead a group of girls anywhere.

Um, its a private club that someone just started one day. If you dont like the policies, start another one just like it that alligns with your beliefs. If you are right, then the old one will fade into obscurity and your new one will blossom. Who cares what some private club thinks? They dont have the market cornered on camping and marksmanship. Whats the point in wanting someone else to change their club?

Correct, it is a private club, however it has grown into a staple of American living and growing up as a boy.
From going through cub scouts and boy scouts, I saw, at a young age that the boy scouts was sort of a haven for those kids that were "less popular", actually very much so. I wasn't "that kid" thankfully. Played lots of sports, varsity, all conference, etc, had lots of friends, girlfriends in hi school. I was not the typical boy scout. In fact alot of the kids I was in Scouts with for years I did not socialize with AT ALL in shcool. Was this wrong? Yes, but I was a kid and poularity sometimes wins over moral type stuff.
Point being, Boy Scouts was one of the only things that some of these kids did that gave them a sense of belonging. No difference if the kid is gay or unpolular for another reason. Everyone needs some place to "belong" and fit in and the Boy Scouts of America fits that bill for hundreds of thousands of kids every year.
Again, yes the organization can ban gays, but IMO it would go against the principles it was founded on.
I guess the Boy Scouts is supposed to help teach kids how to be good, honest, productive citizens, as well as a means of recreation and it is not teaching that if it is singleing out one group of people.